Richard R. Hamlett - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
               Fourthly, the promissory note on which petitioner relies               
          does not help petitioner’s case on this record.  The note was for           
          $135,000--the $100,000 Parker paid for the Corporations plus the            
          $35,000 Parker paid for the Partnership Interests.  The note                
          bears interest at 6 percent per year.  The parties have                     
          stipulated that, through September 25, 2003, petitioner’s                   
          payments to Parker on the note aggregated $28,933.23.  This is              
          approximately the amount of the required interest payments alone.           
          Thus, we cannot conclude from the parties’ stipulation or                   
          anything else in the record to which our attention has been                 
          directed, that petitioner has yet repaid any of the $100,000 that           
          Parker paid to him for the Corporations.  Also, (1) petitioner’s            
          failure to repay Parker promptly in 2000,  after the consent                
          order was entered and after petitioner was discharged from                  
          bankruptcy, and (2) petitioner’s failure to repay Parker in the             
          3� years after he signed the promissory note, suggest that                  
          petitioner did not in 1996 make any provisions for repayment.  Of           
          course, “The best laid schemes o’ mice and men/Gang aft a-gley.”            
          Burns, “To a Mouse”, st. 7, in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations 377           
          (17th ed. 2002).  But if petitioner had in fact made any such               
          provisions, then we would expect to have heard from him what                
          those provisions were.  O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d at 584;           
          Stoumen v. Commissioner, 208 F.2d at 907; Wichita Terminal                  
          Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. at 1165.                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011